Yes! The volume is the key. Without it, a chart tells only half the story.

NL, the only thing i'd say about your arguments above is that i'd like to see gubmint play a "more" active role by loosening the choke points and regs that are restricting Bitcoin's free trade at the moment. there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be much more widespread by now if they weren't interfering.

the other thing is that until the gubmint is willing to tie their fiat currency emission to Bitcoin, such as perhaps M1 to 21m BTC, they will continue to inflate the USD which is bad for everyone. this has to stop.

Why M1 instead of M2? I've thought M2 was a better analog since it includes stored value, but I follow this thread religiously and value your thoughts on this.

Bitcoin Specie project has been doing it, for real, with silver for quite a while now.Gold will be added soonish.http://coldhardca.shThe higher the volume, the lower the premium and closer to the spot alloy price.

How do I buy the silver from them ? Its not a backing as such I guess, they are offering to sell. Main problem is usually postage and customs. I'd change my mind if the Perth mint allowed depositbullion to be purchased in bitcoin and then it would be useful to be. One day I could go collect it even, ruling out delivery problems

meaning we may end up plunking it into M1 in a 1 to 1 ratio with the USD monetary base forming a Bitcoin Standard serving as the foundation for the existing fiat debt system so as to prevent a severe debt implosion.

That's a thing that could be done, I suppose.

I consider it more likely that the USA goes the way of the USSR than the possibility that they could pull that kind of a rabbit out of their hat.

I can't see it either. They would be building a proven failed layer on top of a proven successful system. It would basically be a centralized side chain controlled by the US government. I don't see how people would be incentivized to use that when they can use a decentralized solution... maybe not bitcoin directly but a decentralized side chain of sorts. Perhaps people would still use a government sponsored currency because government would provide insurance (FDIC) against theft and loss, but private insurance solutions can work just as good or better for that. However, government always seems to find a way to maintain control but I believe their power will be weakened, and there may be a certain segment of the population that will always choose to use a government sponsored currency.

Counterfeit: made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive: merriam-webster

Bitcoin Specie project has been doing it, for real, with silver for quite a while now.Gold will be added soonish.http://coldhardca.shThe higher the volume, the lower the premium and closer to the spot alloy price.

How do I buy the silver from them ? Its not a backing as such I guess, they are offering to sell. Main problem is usually postage and customs. I'd change my mind if the Perth mint allowed depositbullion to be purchased in bitcoin and then it would be useful to be. One day I could go collect it even, ruling out delivery problems

Its available direct in quantity, or through many of the bitcoin bullion sellers. Most also offer international shipping.Vaulting is available at the mint by custom agreement.

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdocHighlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

Costa said the bank's activities "were in clear violation of Bank of Portugal rules" and used "fraudulent schemes." Police suspect former Chief Executive Ricardo Espirito Santo Salgado, who stepped down last month, of fraud, forgery and money-laundering at the bank, whose business dates from the 19th century and has been one of Portugal's most venerable financial institutions, as well as for years its biggest private bank.

Costa said the bank's activities "were in clear violation of Bank of Portugal rules" and used "fraudulent schemes." Police suspect former Chief Executive Ricardo Espirito Santo Salgado, who stepped down last month, of fraud, forgery and money-laundering at the bank, whose business dates from the 19th century and has been one of Portugal's most venerable financial institutions, as well as for years its biggest private bank.

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdocHighlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdocHighlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy.Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play.Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today.

it looks to me that mining would be best described as being in a Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium - cypherdocHighlights are mine:

"A pure strategy Nash equilibrium is a profile of strategies such that each player’s (miner's) strategy is a best response ((results in the highest available payoff (block reward)) against the equilibrium strategies of the other players (miners).

A pure strategy Nash equilibrium only requires that the action taken by each agent (miner) be best against the actual equilibrium actions taken by the other players (miners), and not necessarily against all possible actions of the other players (miners). In other words, it's expected for some miners to be malicious.

A Nash equilibrium has the nice property that it is stable: if each player expects 'a' to be the profile of actions played, then no player (miner) has any incentive to change his or her action (no incentive to start cheating). In other words, no player (miner) regrets having played the action that he or she played in a Nash equilibrium."

Nash equilibrium works well in theory, the real world is a little more messy.Pre-mass adoption there are so many outside interests seeking bitcoin failure that there are other incentives at play.Once there is more distribution and buy in, the full effects of the Nash Equilibrium will be much stronger than they are today.

the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game; therefore, i think the Nash Equilibrium takes those hostile actors into account. the minimum # of participants required to apply the theory is 2 and doesn't depend on large #'s. what's also important for all actors to know and understand, and to know that the others know, is that the longest blockchain and the POW required to construct it is mathematically immutable. b/c we know that the hashrate of the Bitcoin Network is thousands of times larger than most of the supercomputers on Earth makes the strategical decision making of each individual actor clear; don't cheat.